Conservative Daily News » ballothttp://www.conservativedailynews.com
The best conservative political news, analysis and opinion articles written by a collection of citizen journalists. Covering a range of important topics in blogs, op-ed, and news posts, these upstanding patriots are bringing back American exceptionalism with every entry..Sat, 28 Mar 2015 13:35:43 +0000en-UShourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.1Eh! Who Cares About the Rules?http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2014/05/eh-who-cares-about-the-rules/
http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2014/05/eh-who-cares-about-the-rules/#commentsSat, 31 May 2014 18:10:57 +0000http://www.conservativedailynews.com/?p=97735Have we as a nation – and more precisely, we are Conservatives, Constitutionalists, Libertarians and Republicans – completely given up on playing by the rules? That would seem to be the case, at least in the instance of election law in the State of Michigan.

The Michigan Secretary of State, Ruth Johnson, a Republican, has abdicated her responsibility to enforce election law for the most basic of issues: how someone qualifies for being included on an election ballot.

“Michigan won’t appeal a federal judge’s ruling that placed Rep. John Conyers (P-MI) on the Democrat ballot, ending the threat that he would have to run a write-in campaign.

“The office of Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson, a Republican, announced the decision on Friday to let the judge’s ruling stand.

“Conyers had originally been ruled ineligible to appear on the ballot for the August primary because local officials found he didn’t submit enough valid petition signatures.

“A US district court judge last week, though, overturned that decision, finding it unconstitutional, and issued an order directing the local election commission to place the longtime lawmaker’s name back on the ballot.”

Let’s overlook, for the moment, that fundamental election law is supposed to be – supposed to be – reserved for the States. While the US Constitution prescribes basic qualifications of an individual to participate in a federal election, State legislatures regulate the eligibility of an individual for voting and to regulate the qualifications for a candidate appearing on a ballot paper. Ergo, the federal judiciary has unconstitutionally overstepped its authority in intervening in this case.

If the Secretary of State – a position directly elected by the voters of any given State – is charged with the responsibility to faithfully execute election law, in the case of Ms. Johnson, the option to abdicate responsibility to follow the letter of the law does not exist. By not executing an appeal of the federal judge’s unconstitutional ruling she both violates her oath of office to faithfully execute her duties as Secretary of State, but she also betrays the constitutional rights of her State’s citizenry by surrendering the State mandated rights of Michiganians.

A citizen versed in the threat of Progressivism would point out that one of the primary goals of the Progressive movement is to centralize government at the federal level, moving the authority of government away from elected representation and toward an ever-expanding federal bureaucracy. Ms. Johnson, by skirting her responsibility to defend her State’s authority to render election law, has aided the Progressive cause in Mr. Conyers’ inclusion on the Michigan ballot when he had not satisfied the requirements to be included.

As the mainstream media continues to manifest a false narrative about a “rift” within the Republican Party, the fact of the matter is this. Those who call themselves Conservatives, Constitutionalists and TEA Partiers (and by the way, TEA is capitalized because it is an acronym for Taxed Enough Already) are standing against those “go along to get along” Republicans who consistently betray the core tenets of the Republican Party, chief among them the common understanding that the United States of America – as so eloquently stated by John Adams – is “a nation of laws, not men.” To wit, there is no “rift.” True Republicans are trying to purge Progressives from their ranks, especially in positions of leadership.

This understood, hasn’t Ms. Johnson proved herself a Progressive in the Republican Ranks? One has to ask, what gives Ms. Johnson the authority to pick and choose what laws she follows and what laws she doesn’t? An action such as this is something the Obama Administration engages in…and that, constitutionally speaking and in a land of laws and not men, is both unAmerican and illegal.

]]>http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2014/05/eh-who-cares-about-the-rules/feed/0MN Democrats Trying To Make Voting Easierhttp://www.conservativedailynews.com/2013/02/mn-democrats-trying-to-make-voting-easier/
http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2013/02/mn-democrats-trying-to-make-voting-easier/#commentsThu, 21 Feb 2013 14:45:46 +0000http://www.conservativedailynews.com/?p=84589As if the state with the highest voter turnout in the country, nearly 76% in 2012, needed improvement, Democrat legislators in Minnesota are considering proposals to make voting even easier.

Flying under the media radar are two bills aimed at getting even more people to the polls at election time, allowing for early voting and modifying the absenteee voting process. While media attention swirls around the proposed gun control legislation, making its way through committees are proposals that open the floodgates to more fraud and mistakes, and lack any additional oversight or methods for battling Minnesota’s flawed vouching system.

Currently, Minnesota has no identification requirement for a non-registered person if someone whose name is on the registration rolls agrees to “vouch” for that person. The “voucher” signs a statement promising that the person without identification of any kind is eligible to vote. Verification of new voter registrations is not done until weeks after Election Day.

MN Senate File 535 aims to make “early voting” as easy as Election Day voting, and includes allowing vouching during the early voting time period. Early voting is done without election judges or poll watchers. Instead, a ballot board consisting of 2 people, one from each major political party, are responsible for the accurate handling of early voting ballots.

The prevailing reason democrats say Minnesota needs early voting is to make it more “convenient” for voters.

“The reason I think it’s so important is because people already think we have it… people want the convenience of early voting,” said author of SF 535 Democrat Senator Sieben.

Lucy Nieboer, Co-chair of Minnesota Public Interest Research Group at the University of Minnesota said that many students have trouble making it to the polls on Election Day. She spoke of her own difficulty with 2 part time jobs and a full class schedule. Despite her busy life, she found time to register more than 7,000 students last fall and spent nearly 3 hours in the Elections Sub-comittee meeting yesterday.

Several other testifiers in favor of the bill also cited convenience as the primary reason for their support of early voting. None of those in favor addressed the vouching system or adding safeguards against potential fraud or mistakes.

MN Senate File 564 would completely change the absentee voting process in the state and even allows for “permanent absentee voter status,” which means a voter could be sent an absentee ballot each election year without proactively requesting one.

TALLAHASSEE, Fla., June 14, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — A hearing will be held this Monday, June 18, 2012, at 9 a.m. in the courtroom of Judge Terry Lewis, the judge whose decisions helped decide the 2000 presidential elections. The subject of the hearing is a lawsuit filed by Michael Voeltz, a registered Democrat who is challenging, as he has a right to do under Florida law, the eligibility of Barack Obama to be on the Florida presidential ballot in 2012.

The issues in the case at this stage include but are not limited to: 1.) the duty of Florida’s Secretary of State to confirm eligibility before the name of a candidate such as Barack Obama are placed on the ballot, 2.) the definition of the term “natural born citizen,” which is a constitutional requirement for presidential eligibility and 3.) whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen born in the United States or its territories to two American citizen parents.

In a prior hearing, Judge Lewis stressed that Mr. Voeltz’s attorney, Larry Klayman, had cited Supreme Court authority that a natural born citizen must be born in the United States to two American citizen parents, but the Barack Obama’s attorneys had cited no authority to the contrary. Judge Lewis called for Obama’s attorneys to submit briefing on the issue prior to the hearing, and for Mr. Klayman to submit affidavits attesting to issues of fact in dispute as to where Obama was born. Among several affidavits, Klayman submitted the sworn testimony of Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio, whose “Cold Case Posse” has been investigating Obama’s eligibility on behalf of Arizona and found that his alleged birth certificate is likely forged.

This case is monumental particularly since Florida is once again at the center of an election dispute that could have a major impact on American history. Larry Klayman observed: “Most of the Washington, D.C. and media establishment have never wanted to confront the issue of Obama’s eligibility to be president, as this is not considered ‘politically correct.’ But the framers did confront it and this is why they required a higher threshold to be president that goes beyond just being a citizen. They understood, particularly given the times they lived in, where British Tories and spies sought to undermine the new Republic, that they could not permit someone with divided loyalties to occupy the highest office in the land.”

The case is titled Voeltz v. Obama, No. 2012 CA 00467 in Leon County Circuit Court. The hearing is open to the public and the media. Klayman’s work is supported by the non-profit ConstitutionActionFund.org. The hearing is being broadcast “live streamed” on the internet by www.wnd.com.